Sid Meier's Civilization V

 PC
User Score
8.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 2963 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2,247 out of 2963
  2. Mixed: 454 out of 2963
  3. Negative: 262 out of 2963
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. Helios
    Oct 11, 2010
    4
    I've been a fairly long-term fan of the series; I played Civ2 when I was a kid and then a couple of years ago got into Civ4, and it really immersed me in a beautiful and epic world of unparalleled strategy and thoughtfulness. After spending over $50 on Civ5 and playing for just over 20 hours, I can tell you that Civ5 is the death of all that was good about the Civilization series. TimeI've been a fairly long-term fan of the series; I played Civ2 when I was a kid and then a couple of years ago got into Civ4, and it really immersed me in a beautiful and epic world of unparalleled strategy and thoughtfulness. After spending over $50 on Civ5 and playing for just over 20 hours, I can tell you that Civ5 is the death of all that was good about the Civilization series. Time and time again we are seeing the profit motive take precedence over well-developed and ground-breaking games and this is the saddest instance I've ever experienced of that. Below is just a short list I've compiled of the problems experienced after 20 hours of play:

    - No micromanagement of happiness in individual cities
    - Many culture policies are absolutely useless, and you 'buy' them with culture 'points' just like technology... why have two tech trees?
    - Most culture policies are repeated verbatim in a wonder that does exactly the same thing
    - Most wonders cost way too much production to build and it's actually better to not bother building 3/4 of them at all
    - No civics, no religion, no health, no forest regrowth, less technologies, no espionage, and no tech/culture slider... - City states offer so little in terms of strategic advantages (you have to pay to maintain the relationship with gold) that you are better just invading them
    - Many buildings are simply copies of earlier buildings that you have to build first (eg. market and bank both just give 25% wealth increase; coliseum and theatre are the same, university and observatory are practically the same as well...) -Only a handful of buildings are worth building at all once you factor in their huge production cost
    - The diplomacy system is next to useless, there is no useful information on other civs as in Civ4, and vassalage is not even an option in the game
    - There is no indicator telling you how another civ feels about you, so you can't tell whether they are 'friendly', 'pleased' etc. outside of the fact that they either threaten you or declare war on you out of nowhere
    - The AI is terrible - in the Noble-difficultly game I was playing, Suleiman, despite being able to expand across islands, only built two cities by the industrial period and was still using spearmen against my riflemen...
    - When I invaded him and took his two cities the rest of the civs went nuts and 4 of them (out of 9) invaded me even though previously they traded with me and signed defensive pacts ....talk about aggressive AI. None of them were allied with each other as far as I could tell, some hadn't even met one another (so it wasn't a brilliant strategy like the religious alliances in Civ4, it was basically just terrible AI)
    - Although the war wasn't really a problem as such because the Japanese leader just 'embarked' all of his knights etc. into the ocean (a new feature that allows you to send units into the sea, but they have 0 strength so get owned by anything hostile). So in the space of 8 turns I destroyed 8 of his units trying to cross the sea with ONE solitary caravel - he hadn't even bothered to build one ship...
    - Aside from these problems, the game is really poorly balanced - depending on the map you get the 'special abilities' each Civ gets (a poor substitute for the two traits from Civ4) are completely useless...eg. playing as Bismarck on an island map (he gets a 50% chance to convert a barbarian unit when he captures a barbarian camp, I didn't get one out of about the 6 that I encountered). Similarly with Suleiman - he gets the same thing but with barbarian naval units... why would you even bother? I would only expect this poor degree of balance in a beta release... Overall I have to say, definitely save your money and if you haven't got Civ4:BtS buy that instead. I will be uninstalling civ5 from my computer and going back to 4, at least until they release the proper modification code and the people over at Civfanatics put together a Civ5 to Civ4 total conversion mod that brings back what made the predecessor a brilliant game. Come to think of it, aside from the shiny graphics , single units and hex squares I can't think of anything new that Civ5 introduces that is actually worthwhile. Where Civ4 was nuanced and rewarded deep strategy, this deeply flawed thing was put together just to make money. The best analogy I can think of to sum up Civ5 is that where Civ4 was a piece of art, Civ5 is a used condom.    … Expand
  2. Megatanis
    Oct 30, 2012
    0
    I don't know where to start. I grew up with civ, it was the very first game I played when i was a kid. It had, as most of the products in that time, an aura of legend around it. I learned history from civ. All of a sudden, I wanted to know who exactly was Shaka of the Zulus. My mind expanded imagining alternate histories. When you played civ, you got smarter. Yes of course it had problems,I don't know where to start. I grew up with civ, it was the very first game I played when i was a kid. It had, as most of the products in that time, an aura of legend around it. I learned history from civ. All of a sudden, I wanted to know who exactly was Shaka of the Zulus. My mind expanded imagining alternate histories. When you played civ, you got smarter. Yes of course it had problems, it was just a game after all. But one of those games you would forgive anything, simply because it has something magical around it. Civ 4 is, as many have pointed out here as well, the pinnacle of the series. Again, of course it had aspects which could have been improved, and btw the Civ series was NEVER the hardest, toughest or most complicated strategy game out there. Try playing the Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron series, or many others, and you'll see what I mean. Civ has always been a coulourful, entertaining gem, a perfect mix of micro and macro managing, even though the AI was never any good, and some mechanics were certainly improvable. Now we have this..I don't even know how to define it. So, Dear Sid, all of a sudden, after 20 years of pure genius, you decided that people saying "oh no, I have to actually research a tech that will allow me to build transport ships and THEN I must load my units on them?? BOORING" were the ones to listen, while those that made it possible for you to be in business today, those that bought and supported your products in a time when even owning a PC was something (I don't live in the US by the way), were to be insulted in this way. For the respect I still have towards your past wonders, I'll just stop it here, because you know what I'm talking about, the negative comments are really not necessary. You, above everyone else in this world, know perfectly well what has happened to the Civ franchise.

    I firmly believe a compromise between complexity/Traditional civ (for the old fans) and simplicity/moar money (from sales/ influx of newcomers) would have been perfectly doable, and it would have been accepted by everyone.
    To screw up a game like civ in this way is totally unbelievable.

    So bottom line, sure there is nostalgia involved, but I tried to give a balanced judgement. Civ 5 is a shallow, unintersting, boring game. Graphics are only marginally better than civ4, and who cares about "amazing" graphics anyway (in a turn based strategy game). It seems to be riddled with bugs. Gameplay choices are reduced to a minimum, illogical and outright broken mecahisms are everywhere. And, of course, it's a game for 12 years old kids. On top of this, since it's a successor to a great series (and because it's called CIV FIVE), old fans will inevitably compare it to the previous titles. And this is not good. You know it, I know it, everyone that should knows it. The ones that don't, probably have no idea who Sun Tzu was or where the hell is Costantinople, and are wondering why they can't headshot Montezuma, so why bother. You just want their money.
    Right?

    ps I just hope you are spending more money to buy these "The best Civ ever!!!" reviews (LOL) than what you made by selling the game. Maybe when you'll realise that alienating what were probably among the most loyal videogamers in history (civ fans) was a bad marketing decision, you'll see your error. But it will be too late

    Quoque tu, Sid    … Expand
  3. Arctarus
    Dec 24, 2010
    2
    2 points for graphic improvement over previous versions. The rest is garbage and the same old concept with this Civ traditional game. It looks like Civ 5 has seen an upgrade in graphics but got a downgrade in the process by it. Since it is turn-based, it plays like a risk game, but the turns are creating a new phenomenon called "creative boring royale" syndrome. You wait and wait and2 points for graphic improvement over previous versions. The rest is garbage and the same old concept with this Civ traditional game. It looks like Civ 5 has seen an upgrade in graphics but got a downgrade in the process by it. Since it is turn-based, it plays like a risk game, but the turns are creating a new phenomenon called "creative boring royale" syndrome. You wait and wait and wait and wait until kingdom come to the point it's ridiculous to even try. That tells you there is a problem with the game code programming in itself. Good games runs flawlessly and require less space to begin with. Looking at the game sheer size for a turn-based, you get a good idea how bad it will be on your pc. I dub Civ5 The "please wait" civ game instead, and I'm certainly not alone with that saying. Saying no to 2k games for a while and you may actually get better results. Why give them good grades when they don't deserve it? Peace.… Expand
  4. Suyadon
    Dec 25, 2010
    2
    I give this game a FAIL. I would rate this game quite differently based upon its playability, but considering the fact that the game can become unplayable due to CTD's. No crashes BEFORE the December '10 patch release, but now always crashes one I reach the 1600's. I don't deal with games crashing on my PS3 or Xbox360 and don't feel I have to settle for less on my PC. OK, update driversI give this game a FAIL. I would rate this game quite differently based upon its playability, but considering the fact that the game can become unplayable due to CTD's. No crashes BEFORE the December '10 patch release, but now always crashes one I reach the 1600's. I don't deal with games crashing on my PS3 or Xbox360 and don't feel I have to settle for less on my PC. OK, update drivers and some tweeking, I'll take that and I make exceptions when this happens with mods, but c'mon, a clean install of civilization V? I would prefer to get slugged in the face then spend another minute getting half-way through an epic strategy game only to have the game end with CTD's.… Expand
  5. McKampela
    Jun 9, 2011
    5
    The game is aesthetically good looking and the combat system is interesting. But the game sucks, mostly because of really poor AI, that fails all warfare and is boring. The AI takes the worst parts from human players and regular Civ Ai and mashes them into a poorly executed abomination. The AI is unpredictable, in a bad way, stupid and can't grasp the basic concepts of warfare. It alsoThe game is aesthetically good looking and the combat system is interesting. But the game sucks, mostly because of really poor AI, that fails all warfare and is boring. The AI takes the worst parts from human players and regular Civ Ai and mashes them into a poorly executed abomination. The AI is unpredictable, in a bad way, stupid and can't grasp the basic concepts of warfare. It also takes serious amounts of computing power to just move its million worker units from place to place, doing nothing. The game also lacks any feeling of wonder. If you want a supereasy strategy game, this is a game for you.… Expand
  6. Xyz
    Nov 19, 2010
    7
    What to say about this one? The first thing that comes to mind is that it still is Civilization. BUT it's Civilization dumbed down for masses. If you want features that made this series great, go back to Civ4. Don't get me wrong, this is a good game, the thing is, its worse than its predecessors. It has got better graphics, and some improved features (I for one enjoyed the new combatWhat to say about this one? The first thing that comes to mind is that it still is Civilization. BUT it's Civilization dumbed down for masses. If you want features that made this series great, go back to Civ4. Don't get me wrong, this is a good game, the thing is, its worse than its predecessors. It has got better graphics, and some improved features (I for one enjoyed the new combat system), but if you're a Civ fan like me, this one looks like a step back... To conclude: if you've never played a Civ game, this one is the perfect entry point, but when you master it and want more complexity go back to previous games, you wont be disappointed… Expand
  7. Nandoalbando
    Aug 3, 2012
    6
    pro: the exagon strategy system
    cons: no religion, no espionage, empire limitation system, the cost of the road system, console-enterface of city management
  8. Amathev
    May 16, 2012
    8
    I hated it at first, and then I loved it.
    I guess that at first I had an idealized image of what the series was, but after actually having gone back to play the old games I came back with a fresh look on CIV V.
    This is now my favourite game in the series, although there are some things missing that I would like, but they're apparently going to be re-introduced in the upcoming expansion.
  9. chevmech
    May 5, 2012
    9
    Civ 5 is not a bad game. I think they just went the wrong direction with it. The graphics are updated beautifully but the depth has been stripped back some. This will change to some degree with the release of Gods and kings, but if you are looking for more depth and content, you are better off loading Civ 4 mod Caveman to Cosmos. The mod is everything I hoped 5 would introduceCiv 5 is not a bad game. I think they just went the wrong direction with it. The graphics are updated beautifully but the depth has been stripped back some. This will change to some degree with the release of Gods and kings, but if you are looking for more depth and content, you are better off loading Civ 4 mod Caveman to Cosmos. The mod is everything I hoped 5 would introduce including so much depth and content it's almost TOO much to process. Some improvements that were made in 5 are: City-states- a cool new addition. Ranged units are ACTUALLY ranged units being able to attack from more than one space away. Hex grid is way better than square and unit stacking is gone. I find it more realistic, but it is a pain in the @$$ when you have to move garrisoned units to produce more. Gods and Kings will re-introduce a religion resource and units will receive a large bump in HP. I'm anxious to see how this will affect overall game strategy. Overall the game is solid and I must give it a thumbs up.… Expand
  10. mrpepperkitty
    Nov 2, 2011
    2
    Terrible, played it for 4 hours, won, put it back in the box. Where is the 'civvyness' in it? My enemies never scheme against me, never see through me mechanations against them, Hard here feels like beginner in civ IV. If you're new to the series, don't like thinking too hard, love mediocre graphics and gameplay, then this is for you. And if all the Civ games had been like that I would notTerrible, played it for 4 hours, won, put it back in the box. Where is the 'civvyness' in it? My enemies never scheme against me, never see through me mechanations against them, Hard here feels like beginner in civ IV. If you're new to the series, don't like thinking too hard, love mediocre graphics and gameplay, then this is for you. And if all the Civ games had been like that I would not be nearly as disappointed, or for that matter, have bought it. But as a sequel it is an Elementary school play released after a Blockbuster movie, and it even costs more than the movie! Disappointing.… Expand
  11. Redoer
    May 27, 2012
    4
    I've played all the civ games since 2, but this is the biggest disappointment. I bought this game on release, excited about what they would do with the hexes and the built in mod API, and I can't say I felt satisfied. The mod API is nice, but everything else is just meh. There is no more espionage or religion, war is the only answer to anything; I feel the game has been greatly simplifiedI've played all the civ games since 2, but this is the biggest disappointment. I bought this game on release, excited about what they would do with the hexes and the built in mod API, and I can't say I felt satisfied. The mod API is nice, but everything else is just meh. There is no more espionage or religion, war is the only answer to anything; I feel the game has been greatly simplified to attract a larger market. No unit stacking is more of a pain than anything, micromanaging doesn't seem worth it, time between turns is agonizingly long. The long wait between turns is not helped by the boring background music that doesn't seem to ever change. All in all, I'd probably recommend Civ 4 over this if you haven't bought it already.… Expand
  12. Viper482
    Nov 7, 2013
    0
    Overrated game because the combat absolutely sucks. Basically have more units than your enemy, you will win. Except on harder levels where instead of raising the level of AI they raise the level of units you need to survive ANY encounter. It is a stupid system and because of this alone I give this game a crap score.
  13. Czar
    Sep 28, 2010
    7
    To be honest I was hoping for more. I have played all the civs starting with the first one. The additions to this version do not remove the jaded feel I have playing it. Its fun, but so was the previous one. The city states are nice addition. Hexes don't add anything. Non stacking of armies is a bit annoying and unrealistic. Gfx are very nice. I
  14. morpj
    Oct 6, 2010
    5
    After 32 hours of playing I have to put this game aside until the bugs are fixed. I am playing on a large map and I'm experiencing crashes when loading saved games, plus the game occasionally hangs while AI are taking their turns. I can't believe all the "professional" reviewers overlooked the bugs! It is all definitely worse in the modern age, when there is lots going on. The AI is alsoAfter 32 hours of playing I have to put this game aside until the bugs are fixed. I am playing on a large map and I'm experiencing crashes when loading saved games, plus the game occasionally hangs while AI are taking their turns. I can't believe all the "professional" reviewers overlooked the bugs! It is all definitely worse in the modern age, when there is lots going on. The AI is also very, very poor - diplomacy is broken, and the Persians just gifted me half their civilization (something like 20 cities) after I attacked with only 6 mediocre units. Very annoying.… Expand
  15. kram789
    Jul 27, 2011
    6
    Some good stuff in this game, but also a lot of idiocies. The good stuff, is that the multiple paths to winning really work. Previous versions were all about expanding, but in this version a compact civilization can do very well. The bad is that the game is unecessarily hard to manage. A lot of techniques that existed in prior versions are missing. Such as being able to set your citySome good stuff in this game, but also a lot of idiocies. The good stuff, is that the multiple paths to winning really work. Previous versions were all about expanding, but in this version a compact civilization can do very well. The bad is that the game is unecessarily hard to manage. A lot of techniques that existed in prior versions are missing. Such as being able to set your city preferences across the empire from one city. Or, being able to go to a city screen from the F2 city summary view, or being able to change production in the same F2 view. It also is cheap that you the game does not take into account production to date when purchasing a building. All of these were probably left out to help sell the sequel in typical Sid Meir fashion.… Expand
  16. Ashton2571
    Oct 19, 2010
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Civilization V was unfortunately dumbed down to the point which all the advanced features were gone, features such as espionage. Another disappointing feature was the victory screen, where was the video? where was the spaceship flying to alpha centuri? the victory screens were unfortunatly simple and boring. Not to mention the numerous bugs (such as the infinate iron and horse bug); Besides that, Civilization 5 had much more interesting game combat and the introduction of social policies was also exciting. 6/10… Expand
  17. profusious
    Oct 20, 2010
    6
    I'm a huge fan of the series, but this was just a let down. They took some interesting mechanics and tried to push the genre forward, but ended up introducing a lot of buggy gameplay -- barely working multiplayer, poor matchmaking and lobby efforts, bugs all over the place, and an unbalanced game. This one should have been left in the oven another 6 months to bake. Too early, and leavesI'm a huge fan of the series, but this was just a let down. They took some interesting mechanics and tried to push the genre forward, but ended up introducing a lot of buggy gameplay -- barely working multiplayer, poor matchmaking and lobby efforts, bugs all over the place, and an unbalanced game. This one should have been left in the oven another 6 months to bake. Too early, and leaves me with a doughy taste in my mouth.… Expand
  18. ashlambert
    Dec 19, 2010
    5
    One word to describe Civ 5 perfectly: simplification. Or maybe: disappointment.
    They should really have called this game Civ Revolutions 2, because that is how it plays like.
    As a long term Civfanatic I played every Civgame since Civ I, and I can't help but feel terribly disappointed by Firaxis newest game. Although, after the bad Colo game I saw it coming. The Major flaws imho: hexagon    One word to describe Civ 5 perfectly: simplification. Or maybe: disappointment.
    They should really have called this game Civ Revolutions 2, because that is how it plays like.
    As a long term Civfanatic I played every Civgame since Civ I, and I can't help but feel terribly disappointed by Firaxis newest game. Although, after the bad Colo game I saw it coming.
    The Major flaws imho: hexagon tiles that look weird, the one unit / one tile - rule - come on, as if that is realistic...it complicates a lot of things to the point where I feel bothered playing this game, it's a real bummer. The compulsory Steam - love it or hate it. Also there are too few Civs in vanilla but this can be fixed, as well as the missing wonder movies.
    The half baked civic system isn't worth mentioning.
    Imho one should wait 1-2 years til the modders fixed the game to a point where it is playable.    … Expand
  19. Keplar
    Mar 1, 2013
    7
    I have trouble reviewing this game, because I know it is a good game, but I don't like it. Civ V doesn't feel like Civilization, and Civilization is what I wanted.

    If you're a fan of old-school tabletop wargames, definitely get in on this action. If you didn't like previous Civilization games, give this one a try it's completely different. If you liked the previous 4 Civilizations,    I have trouble reviewing this game, because I know it is a good game, but I don't like it. Civ V doesn't feel like Civilization, and Civilization is what I wanted.

    If you're a fan of old-school tabletop wargames, definitely get in on this action. If you didn't like previous Civilization games, give this one a try it's completely different. If you liked the previous 4 Civilizations, which allowed you to build giant empires of carefully managed cities, spreading like locust across the land as you blazed through the tech tree and slammed out wonders to the beat of the bass, this is sadly not that at all.

    Snail's pace expansion that's severely hampered mechanics even on the easiest levels keeps you from expanding like previous games. Barbarians constantly spawn encampments right on your borders, spewing endless units in to the mists anywhere you don't have it constantly under surveillance. City-States seize vital resources and moan to you about their neighbors constantly, while claiming protection from foreign powers you've barely even encountered yet. Restrictions on support numbers from given resources add realism, but again hamper the expansion and fun of the previous titles in the series. Everything seems focused on creating a series of tiny countries where the cities serve merely as focal points for the fighting, rather than being the actual focus of the game like before. The focus is on the combat, and the combat just isn't very engaging. Even on large worlds, space seems constrained, and you can't bring power to bear the way you can in earlier Civs.

    I don't want this to sound like Civ V is a bad game it isn't. This is a good game for people who like the wargame/simulation genre. Heck, I'd probably even like it myself... if I wasn't looking for a Civilization title! Civilization was one of the first PC titles I ever really got in to, and its successors Civ 2, Alpha Centauri, Civ 3, and Civ 4 all held my attention for hundreds of hours. Civ V is not Civilization, and despite more than 50 hours and several attempts, I just can't enjoy it.    … Expand
  20. CoreDave
    Dec 18, 2014
    9
    Fantastic installment in the series, at launch there were a lot of issues and the multiplayer was all but unplayable but over the years the various expansions have massively enhanced and improved this game into the utter gem it is today. Great single player, great multiplayer, probably the best turn based strategy game I've ever played. Love it.
  21. Shadowbane
    Oct 22, 2013
    9
    I never cared for the Civ series all that much. It was always playable, but slow tedious and boring to me. Oddly I enjoyed the heck out of Civ 5. It was easy to get into, faster paced than I expected and a hell of a lot of fun multiplier with my mates. A couple things I didn't like, AI was a bit dumber than expected on hard, late game really slows down, and the tech tree for the modern andI never cared for the Civ series all that much. It was always playable, but slow tedious and boring to me. Oddly I enjoyed the heck out of Civ 5. It was easy to get into, faster paced than I expected and a hell of a lot of fun multiplier with my mates. A couple things I didn't like, AI was a bit dumber than expected on hard, late game really slows down, and the tech tree for the modern and space age was to simple. They really should have spread out the tech more at the end. Overall a highly recommended game I will play well into the future.… Expand
  22. jack_the_BOSS
    Aug 1, 2013
    10
    Civilization V is truly the ultimate experience in casual (and a higher difficulties, hardcore) strategy gaming. Having played Civ III for many hours as a kid (I'm 18) and picking up a used copy of Civilization Revolution for PS3 a few years back, this was the first game that I bough when I re-entered the PC gaming world, and I was amazed. The graphics are astonishing for a turn-basedCivilization V is truly the ultimate experience in casual (and a higher difficulties, hardcore) strategy gaming. Having played Civ III for many hours as a kid (I'm 18) and picking up a used copy of Civilization Revolution for PS3 a few years back, this was the first game that I bough when I re-entered the PC gaming world, and I was amazed. The graphics are astonishing for a turn-based strategy game with water effects rivaling any blockbuster of today. Huge selections of empires with plenty of unique structures and units all wrapped up into a very fluid user interface make this a game worth experiencing. The music and voice-work are top notch, but it is really the gameplay that matters. Firaxis knows how to balance a game and any issues that existed at launch of both the base game, and DLCs were quickly patched. Historical knowledge is abound in the so-called "civilopedia" providing photographs and histories over all of the world leaders, wonders, city-states, and more. This game does also have Steam workshop support letting players modify it in all crazy ways if they do get bored. This coupled with the two expansions and the overall long term support allow this addictive game to force anyone to replay it time and time again.
    With this said, the AI is not perfect and the game can occasionally lag even on my PC (which exceeds recommended system requirements in each regard). Inability to stack certain units (i.e., great people, trading units, workers) can be frustrating, but for military units, it is one of the games shining innovations that changes the state of warfare only for the better. The new diplomacy victory and Shoshone empire are currently overpowered in the latest expansion, but I'm sure that will be balanced as Gods and Kings was so perfectly balanced.
    This is a game with infinite replay whether it be in single-player, scenarios, or the flawless multiplayer. This is the Grand Theft Auto of strategy games, a culmination of many superb parts working together to form an even more perfect whole. In the end, I'd give it a 9.8/10 if only to see if Firaxis can out-do itself in Civilization VI.    … Expand
  23. muzziklover
    Jun 1, 2012
    9
    I'm just going to let it out that this is the first Civilization game I have ever played and you know what? I'm glad I played this first because I want to play the rest of the Civilization games and see how they evolved. Civilization V to a new comer like me is pure straight addiction. When I first played this game, I couldn't stop playing until it was 8 in the morning and I was startingI'm just going to let it out that this is the first Civilization game I have ever played and you know what? I'm glad I played this first because I want to play the rest of the Civilization games and see how they evolved. Civilization V to a new comer like me is pure straight addiction. When I first played this game, I couldn't stop playing until it was 8 in the morning and I was starting to hallucinate from the lack of sleep. I was determined to build my empire, I wanted my enemies to burn for defying my empire and I wanted to get every single hexagon spaces for my cities. This game is so addictive that I try my best to avoid playing it. Getting my personal experience out of the way, I'm going to say how Civilization is from a new comer's perspective. I think this game is really good. I don't know how the previous Civilization games played or how their mechanics work or how good they were but I really like the turn based style of this game. The board game like nature of the game made me think harder than most strategy games and I also thought the overall mechanics of it was really deep. What I think is that this game is for people who are completely new or just being introduced to Civilization as I have seen some gameplay of the previous games and they look quite complicated, maybe even more complicated than this. I say if you want to be introduced to this franchise, check Civilization V out. I know I did.… Expand
  24. DGDSN
    Oct 19, 2010
    5
    I have never played Civilization I, II, III, or IV.
    I decided to try the demo and I was hooked.
    However, after a few long games I think it is pretty apparent that the AI is severely lacking. AI players don't appear to be motivated by anything but expanding their territory and conquest. They don't appear to ever attempt a victory through, diplomacy, culture, or technology. The    I have never played Civilization I, II, III, or IV.
    I decided to try the demo and I was hooked.
    However, after a few long games I think it is pretty apparent that the AI is severely lacking.
    AI players don't appear to be motivated by anything but expanding their territory and conquest. They don't appear to ever attempt a victory through, diplomacy, culture, or technology. The leader/diplomacy screens look great and are fully voiced, but the AI doesn't seem to respond to diplomacy in any meaningful way.
    Basically, in single-player, any type of victory besides conquest, and any action besides building up your military is a waste of time.    … Expand
  25. rave_rd
    Mar 8, 2011
    5
    I have to say that this 5 is hard for me to give, mostly because I'm a big fan of the Civ series, but this game has so many bugs in it (still, even now after Firaxis patched the game a couple of weeks ago) that it's almost impossible to enjoy. And believe me I'm trying to--If you can get through all of the glitches and crashes (I've had to force quit several times or just end up on myI have to say that this 5 is hard for me to give, mostly because I'm a big fan of the Civ series, but this game has so many bugs in it (still, even now after Firaxis patched the game a couple of weeks ago) that it's almost impossible to enjoy. And believe me I'm trying to--If you can get through all of the glitches and crashes (I've had to force quit several times or just end up on my desktop when I'm trying to START a game) the gameplay itself is quite good...
    Yes there are a few things missing for fans of Civ IV (I particularly miss the religion aspect...as has been mentioned many times elsewhere) but the gameplay seems solid...the AI hasn't given me too many problems and I like the fact that only one unit is able to be in a square at a time (no more gigantic stacks of units slowing gameplay down).....but in the end...it's a fun game in principle (thus my 5), but with so many flaws that it's really hard to sit down and enjoy.

    I hope to change this review in the future if it gets fixed    … Expand
  26. ravenblade
    Dec 3, 2010
    5
    The good things first, wars are more fun now and less of a dice game. It does look really good in DX11 mode. Alot things have been streamlined and even so playing it still gives you the typical Civilization feeling. However there is alot of things which clearly were not mentioned in official reviews at all. Despite best intentions the game is still littered with exploits, game-stoppingThe good things first, wars are more fun now and less of a dice game. It does look really good in DX11 mode. Alot things have been streamlined and even so playing it still gives you the typical Civilization feeling. However there is alot of things which clearly were not mentioned in official reviews at all. Despite best intentions the game is still littered with exploits, game-stopping bugs and ghastly performance issues being the result of poor optimization with the latter two coming to bear in games featuring large and huge maps. The UI is tends to be a cause for frequent lock-ups and confusions and also feels rather clunky. The AI behaves rather erratic and illogical, refuses to cooperate and to be offensive altogether even when it would be far better for it to do so. On the sound side there seems to be a step back altogether, whereas Civ4 would offer era-typical scores for your cultures it is now just back to using licensed scores of somewhat awkward choice and mediocre quality.… Expand
  27. giskard
    Mar 6, 2011
    5
    I got this game shortly after it was released and quickly realised this was not a Civilization game at all. The game play of this game consists mostly of next next next with the AI handling most things for you. All the challenges and fun of the series has been stripped away and replaced by want feels like a console version of Civilization. Also dipsite the patches, the slow down and lackI got this game shortly after it was released and quickly realised this was not a Civilization game at all. The game play of this game consists mostly of next next next with the AI handling most things for you. All the challenges and fun of the series has been stripped away and replaced by want feels like a console version of Civilization. Also dipsite the patches, the slow down and lack around the 15th century is still so bad, I doubt I will be able to finish it. So far I have lacked the will power to try. Civilization 1 and Civilization 4 remain my 2 favourites, just so you know where I am coming from and what I liked about the Civ series.

    Fans of the old Civ games seem to have a universal hate for Civilization 5, where as new fans that have never seen it have no idea whats missing and so like it.    … Expand
  28. bohb
    Mar 9, 2011
    5
    CIV 2 was a better game in almost every single aspect !!
    they have taken the very soul of the franchise and turned it into something quite abhorent... something to look at. I was proud of being a fan of a game that was just that; a game.
    PLEASE stop trying to improve the graphics evry time! do chess or card games benefit from pretty pictures? NO!
    let us all pray that CIV-VI will one for the fans
  29. 1010101
    Jun 11, 2012
    6
    My first Civ game was Civ2. I loved it. I've played each Civ game to follow. Maybe I've just become jaded and bored with the series, but Civ5 didn't capture my interest at all. The first game I played, I went the entire game without ever attacking anyone or being attacked. All I did was click 'next turn'. In my second game, I decided to try the expansionist strategy, only to discover thatMy first Civ game was Civ2. I loved it. I've played each Civ game to follow. Maybe I've just become jaded and bored with the series, but Civ5 didn't capture my interest at all. The first game I played, I went the entire game without ever attacking anyone or being attacked. All I did was click 'next turn'. In my second game, I decided to try the expansionist strategy, only to discover that the game designers hate the expansionist strategy. As for new features, the no unit stacking rule is kind of cool, and city-states are OK but clutter up the map. Some things never change, though: the AI is still a joke.… Expand
  30. Triggerhappy
    Oct 15, 2013
    6
    An decent strategic game, grossly overpriced at the release. It looks quite fine and has some great art, but not even that justifies the terrible performance issues, meaning you won't be able to play huge maps, as the waiting time between turns grows unbearably long.

    It felt not complex enough at release, having no religions, a silly culture mechanic, no spying at all and absolutely    An decent strategic game, grossly overpriced at the release. It looks quite fine and has some great art, but not even that justifies the terrible performance issues, meaning you won't be able to play huge maps, as the waiting time between turns grows unbearably long.

    It felt not complex enough at release, having no religions, a silly culture mechanic, no spying at all and absolutely horrible, worthless diplomacy. It was still decent. If you really want to give it a shot, I'd say you have to purchase the GoTY edition, which only gives this games enough complex features to justify playing it. Or even calling it Civilization.

    That said, this review concerns only the original release priced now at 30EUR. I would say there are better options of spending your money right now.Only with all the DLCs, it feels somehow complete and fully enjoyable. You would have also had spent 100EUR on it, if you were buying it one DLC after another, so. Alpha Centauri cost me some 20 when it was new. Just sayin'.    … Expand
Page:

Awards & Rankings

4
#4 Best PC Game of 2010
5
#5 Most Discussed PC Game of 2010
3
#3 Most Shared PC Game of 2010

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
90

Universal acclaim - based on 70 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 66 out of 70
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 70
  3. Negative: 0 out of 70
  1. Thunderbolt
    Apr 3, 2011
    90
    Despite my gripe with the animations in multiplayer, Civilization V is the perfect entry for the series' debut in the current generation of gaming.
    Read full review
  2. games(TM)
    Jan 20, 2011
    80
    We're just a little bit disappointed that this Civ evolution isn't as polished as we'd expected. [Issue#102, p.108]
  3. Eurogamer Spain
    Jan 15, 2011
    80
    An old franchise that knows who to evolve to adapt to modern times. Its latest new ideas might not be perfect, but serve the purpose of making the game even more interesting.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »